Sohan Singh and Others vs State of Uttaranchal and Others

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This petition, moved u/s 482 CrPC, challenges the order of cognizance dated 11.7.2006, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1104/2006, Surya Pratap Singh & Another v. Sohan Singh & Others, whereby the accused applicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offence of Section 420/34 IPC. The applicants have also prayed to quash the entire proceedings of the said criminal complaint case.

At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that none has turned up on behalf of the private respondents no. 2 & 3 even in the revised call though they have been served and Vakalatnama on their behalf has been filed by Mr. Gopal Krishna, Advocate, who has also filed counter affidavit on behalf of the said respondents. Hence, this Court rendered hearing to learned Brief Holder for the State.

Having heard the controversy in hand, it appears that an unregistered agreement to sell was executed between the two parties on 16.4.2005. The first party comprised of Sohan Singh, Surendra Pal Singh, Gurjeet Singh, Baljeet Singh and Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, who were the owners of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 229, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242, 244, 129, 231/1 situated in village Pratapur, Tehsil Kashipur, total area ad measuring 23 acres. The second party comprised of Smt. Sonia Agrawal, Surya Pratap Singh and Sandeep Sehgal. The said agreement to sell was made on a stamp paper of rupees fifty for a sale consideration @ rupees seven lakhs per acre. Thus, the total sale consideration was Rs. 1,61,00,000/-. The sale of the land was to be executed by 30.6.2006.

It is the averment of the complainants that the first party executed the sale deed of 14.97 acres of land and a payment of Rs. 69,14,000/- was made to them, while payment of Rs. 91,86,000/- is yet to be made after the execution of the sale deed of the remaining land. Somehow or the other, the terms and conditions of the said deed of agreement could not be honoured by the members of the first party. So, the members of the second party, namely, Sandeep Sehgal and Surya Pratap Singh, filed the impugned complaint on 31.5.2006 for the offence of Section 420/34 IPC against the members of the first party, who are the applicants petitioners, except one Mr. Surendra Pal Singh, before this Court.

The complainants examined themselves u/s 200 CrPC and their witnesses Kamaljeet and Anil were examined u/s 202 CrPC. The learned Magistrate, having gone through the contents of the complaint as well as the statements of the complainants and their witnesses, passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 11.7.2006.

Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon�ble Apex Court in case of Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh, reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 430, wherein a similar controversy was under adjudication, and the Hon�ble Apex Court has found that by no stretch of imagination, the facts depicted in the complaint, make out the office of Section 420/406 IPC. This Court is in full agreement with the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants that the averments made in the impugned complaint, by no stretch of imagination, give rise to the offence of Section 420/34 IPC, firstly, because it was purely a civil agreement and, secondly, it could have been enforceable by way of filing a suit for specific performance of the contract, had there been any legal value of this unregistered agreement to sell. Launching of criminal proceedings against the applicants accused in these circumstances is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of court, which cannot be allowed to proceed.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition has force and it is liable to be allowed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order of cognizance dated 11.7.2006, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1104/2006, Surya Pratap Singh & Another v. Sohan Singh & Others, as well as the entire proceedings of the said case are hereby quashed.

Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly.